public inbox for linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: Miguel Luis <miguel.luis@oracle.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
	"linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk" <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] ACPI: processor: refactor acpi_processor_get_info: isolate acpi_{map|unmap}_cpu under CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 20:44:15 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240410204415.00005597@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AC422669-2869-4C05-B8CD-4C94BDE24012@oracle.com>

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 18:29:34 +0000
Miguel Luis <miguel.luis@oracle.com> wrote:

> > On 10 Apr 2024, at 13:23, Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue,  9 Apr 2024 15:05:32 +0000
> > Miguel Luis <miguel.luis@oracle.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> mapping and unmaping a cpu at the stage of extra cpu enumeration is
> >> architecture specific which depends on CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU so let's
> >> isolate that functionality from architecture independent one.  
> > 
> > Should we consider renaming acpi_map_cpu() to arch_acpi_map_cpu()
> > to make the arch specific nature of that call more obvious?  
> 
> Not sure about the pattern to use here but that seems fine to me. Current usage
> is architectures export acpi_map_cpu from the acpi interface and do their
> thing.
> 
> Question is what to do when there’s a use-case which dismisses acpi_map_cpu and
> it gets called on the code path?

I'm not sure what you mean by dismisses?

Is missing perhaps?  If that is what you mean, I think it's a mistake to allow
that code to be called from a path that isn't dependent on
CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU. It makes no sense to do so and stubbing it out to give
the impression that the calling it does make sense (when looking at the caller)
is misleading.

Jonathan


> 
> 1) export it and do nothing - it would be creating unnecessary dependency.
> 
> 2) evaluate whether calling it is exclusive to the CPU HP path and keep it wrapped
> into CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU.
> 
> Option (2) is the current approach on this RFC. IIUC acpi_map_cpu is solely
> used for CPU HP and the same applies to acpi_unmap_cpu.
> 
> > I think that has caused more confusion in the discussion than
> > whether it is hotplug specific or not.  
> 
> Indeed. Within the CPU HP path there are these arch specific intricacies.
> 
> > 
> > As mentioned in patch 2, fairly sure this needs to go before that
> > patch.  
> 
> 2 and 3 depend on each to be self-contained as CPU HP wouldn’t work without late
> CPU initialisation I think.
> 
> Miguel
> 
> > 
> > Jonathan
> >   
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Miguel Luis <miguel.luis@oracle.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
> >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> >> index 9ea58b61d741..c6e2f64a056b 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> >> @@ -194,8 +194,21 @@ static void acpi_processor_hotplug_delay_init(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> >> pr_info("CPU%d has been hot-added\n", pr->id);
> >> pr->flags.need_hotplug_init = 1;
> >> }
> >> +static int acpi_processor_hotplug_map_cpu(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> >> +{
> >> + return acpi_map_cpu(pr->handle, pr->phys_id, pr->acpi_id, &pr->id);
> >> +}
> >> +static void acpi_processor_hotplug_unmap_cpu(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> >> +{
> >> + acpi_unmap_cpu(pr->id);
> >> +}
> >> #else
> >> static void acpi_processor_hotplug_delay_init(struct acpi_processor *pr) {}
> >> +static int acpi_processor_hotplug_map_cpu(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> >> +{
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +static void acpi_processor_hotplug_unmap_cpu(struct acpi_processor *pr) {}
> >> #endif /* CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU */
> >> 
> >> /* Enumerate extra CPUs */
> >> @@ -215,13 +228,13 @@ static int acpi_processor_enumerate_extra(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> >> cpu_maps_update_begin();
> >> cpus_write_lock();
> >> 
> >> - ret = acpi_map_cpu(pr->handle, pr->phys_id, pr->acpi_id, &pr->id);
> >> + ret = acpi_processor_hotplug_map_cpu(pr);
> >> if (ret)
> >> goto out;
> >> 
> >> ret = arch_register_cpu(pr->id);
> >> if (ret) {
> >> - acpi_unmap_cpu(pr->id);
> >> + acpi_processor_hotplug_unmap_cpu(pr);
> >> goto out;
> >> }
> >>   
> >   
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2024-04-10 19:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-04-09 15:05 [RFC PATCH 0/4] ACPI: processor: refactor acpi_processor_{get_info|remove} Miguel Luis
2024-04-09 15:05 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] ACPI: processor: refactor acpi_processor_get_info: evaluation of processor declaration Miguel Luis
2024-04-10 13:13   ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-10 15:35     ` Miguel Luis
2024-04-09 15:05 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] ACPI: processor: refactor acpi_processor_get_info: isolate cpu hotpug init delay Miguel Luis
2024-04-10 13:20   ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-10 17:20     ` Miguel Luis
2024-04-10 19:40       ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-09 15:05 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] ACPI: processor: refactor acpi_processor_get_info: isolate acpi_{map|unmap}_cpu under CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU Miguel Luis
2024-04-10 13:23   ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-10 18:29     ` Miguel Luis
2024-04-10 19:44       ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2024-04-11 10:52         ` Miguel Luis
2024-04-11 13:57           ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-11 15:55             ` Miguel Luis
2024-04-09 15:05 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] ACPI: processor: refactor acpi_processor_remove: isolate acpi_unmap_cpu " Miguel Luis
2024-04-10 13:31   ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-11 11:02     ` Miguel Luis
2024-04-11 14:02       ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-10 13:35 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] ACPI: processor: refactor acpi_processor_{get_info|remove} Jonathan Cameron

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20240410204415.00005597@Huawei.com \
    --to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=miguel.luis@oracle.com \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox